ZGram - 12/2/2001 - "Keep Your Eye on the Target!" - Part I

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

Copyright (c) 2001 - Ingrid A. Rimland

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

December 2, 2001

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Unrelated to the ZGram below, but for the record:

I need to correct an item in yesterday's ZGram written by Matt Giwer,
titled "Tribal Observations."  Matt made a mistake saying that Abe Foxman
was heading the Wiesenthal Center.  Foxman heads the ADL.

I noticed this mistake and, in fact, secured Matt's permission via e-mail
to correct it, but then accidentally sent the ***uncorrected*** version
through my automatic mail program because both documents were sitting
"open" on my desktop.  I should have been more careful.  Blame it on work
overload!

Now to today's Part I of a three-part ZGram.  It is a speech given by
Congressman Ron Paul, one of America's most courageous and sensitive
leaders,  in response to the "9-11" crisis.  Ron Paul has grasped what this
emergency is really all about - and where it can lead, to the detriment of
the American people.

Here is a Paul Revere-type call to reason and reflection that needs to be
as widely distributed as possible among ordinary citizens and community
leaders.  Please read it several times and let it sink in - and then pass
it on, far and wide.

[START]

Congressman Ron Paul, House of Representatives, November 29, 2001

 Keep Your Eye on the Target

 Mr.  Speaker:

 We have been told on numerous occasions to expect a long and protracted
war.  This is not necessary if one can identify the target - the enemy -
and then stay focused on that target.  It's impossible to keep one's eye on
a target and hit it if one does not precisely understand it and identify
it.

In pursuing any military undertaking, it's the responsibility of Congress
to know exactly why it appropriates the funding.  Today, unlike any time in
our history, the enemy and its location remain vague and pervasive.  In the
undeclared wars of Vietnam and Korea, the enemy was known and clearly
defined, even though our policies were confused and contradictory.  Today
our policies relating to the growth of terrorism are also confused and
contradictory;  however, the precise enemy and its location are not known
by anyone.  Until the enemy is defined and understood, it cannot be
accurately targeted or vanquished.

 The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob" or some
international criminal gang.  It certainly is not a country, nor is it the
Afghan people.  The Taliban is obviously a strong sympathizer with bin
Laden and his henchmen, but how much more so than the government of Saudi
Arabia or even Pakistan?  Probably not much.

 Ulterior motives have always played a part in the foreign policy of almost
every nation throughout history.  Economic gain and geographic expansion,
or even just the desires for more political power, too often drive the
militarism of all nations.  Unfortunately, in recent years, we have not
been exempt.  If expansionism, economic interests, desire for hegemony, and
influential allies affect our policies and they, in turn, incite mob
attacks against us, they obviously cannot be ignored.  The target will be
illusive and ever enlarging, rather than vanquished.

 We do know a lot about the terrorists who spilled the blood of nearly
4,000 innocent civilians.  There were 19 of them, 15 from Saudi Arabia, and
they have paid a high price.  They're all dead.  So those most responsible
for the attack have been permanently taken care of.  If one encounters a
single suicide bomber who takes his own life along with others without the
help of anyone else, no further punishment is possible.  The only question
that can be raised under that circumstance is why did it happen and how can
we change the conditions that drove an individual to perform such a heinous
act.

 The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are not quite so simple,
but they are similar.  These attacks required funding, planning and
inspiration from others.  But the total number of people directly involved
had to be relatively small in order to have kept the plans thoroughly
concealed.  Twenty accomplices, or even a hundred could have done it.  But
there's no way thousands of people knew and participated in the planning
and carrying out of this attack.

Moral support expressed by those who find our policies offensive is a
different matter and difficult to discover.  Those who enjoyed seeing the
U.S.  hit are too numerous to count and impossible to identify.  To target
and wage war against all of them is like declaring war against an idea or
sin.

 The predominant nationality of the terrorists was Saudi Arabian.  Yet for
political and economic reasons, even with the lack of cooperation from the
Saudi government, we have ignored that country in placing blame.  The
Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war.  The Taliban, of course,
is closely tied to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but so are the Pakistanis and
the Saudis.  Even the United States was a supporter of the Taliban's rise
to power, and as recently as August of 2001, we talked oil pipeline
politics with them.

 The recent French publication of "bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth" revealed
our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in
collaboration with the Taliban.  According to the two authors, the economic
conditions demanded by the U.S.  were turned down and led to U.S.  military
threats against the Taliban.

 It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S.  company, has been anxious
to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been
possible due to the weak Afghan central government.  We should not be
surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build"
in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire.  The
crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to
replace the government of Afghanistan.  Since we don't even know if bin
Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive
of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many.

 Former FBI Deputy Director John O'Neill resigned in July over duplicitous
dealings with the Taliban and our oil interests.  O'Neill then took a job
as head of the World Trade Center security and ironically was killed in the
9-11 attack.  The charges made by these authors in their recent publication
deserve close scrutiny and congressional oversight investigation - and not
just for the historical record.

 To understand world sentiment on this subject, one might note a comment in
"The Hindu", India's national newspaper - not necessarily to agree with the
paper's sentiment, but to help us better understand what is being thought
about us around the world in contrast to the spin put on the war by our
five major TV news networks.

 This quote comes from an article written by Sitaram Yechury on October 13,
2001:

"The world today is being asked to side with the U.S.  in a fight against
global terrorism.  This is only a cover.  The world is being asked today,
in reality, to side with the U.S.  as it seeks to strengthen its economic
hegemony.  This is neither acceptable nor will it be allowed.  We must
forge together to state that we are neither with the terrorists nor with
the United States."

 The need to define our target is ever so necessary if we're going to avoid
letting this war get out of control.

 It's important to note that in the same article, the author quoted Michael
Klare, an expert on Caspian Sea oil reserves, from an interview on Radio
Free Europe:

"We (the U.S.) view oil as a security consideration and we have to protect
it by any means necessary, regardless of other considerations, other
values."

This, of course, was a clearly stated position of our administration in
1990 as our country was being prepared to fight the Persian Gulf War.
Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction only became the issue
later on.

 For various reasons, the enemy with whom we're now at war remains vague
and illusive.  Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted
with a rifle or hemlock - not with vague declarations, with some claiming
we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries.  If we're not
precise in identifying our enemy, it's sure going to be hard to keep our
eye on the target.  Without this identification, the war will spread and be
needlessly prolonged.

 Why is this definition so crucial?  Because without it, the special
interests and the ill-advised will clamor for all kinds of expansive
militarism.  Planning to expand and fight a never-ending war in 60
countries against worldwide terrorist conflicts with the notion that, at
most, only a few hundred ever knew of the plans to attack the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.  The pervasive and indefinable enemy - terrorism -
cannot be conquered with weapons and UN nation building - only a more
sensible pro-American foreign policy will accomplish this.  This must occur
if we are to avoid a cataclysmic expansion of the current hostilities.

 It was said that our efforts were to be directed toward the terrorists
responsible for the attacks, and overthrowing and instituting new
governments were not to be part of the agenda.  Already we have clearly
taken our eyes off that target and diverted it toward building a
pro-Western, UN-sanctioned government in Afghanistan.  But if bin Laden can
hit us in New York and DC, what should one expect to happen once the US/UN
establishes a new government in Afghanistan with occupying troops? It seems
that would be an easy target for the likes of al Qaeda.

 Since we don't know in which cave or even in which country bin Laden is
hiding, we hear the clamor of many for us to overthrow our next villain -
Saddam Hussein - guilty or not.  On the short list of countries to be
attacked are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Iran, and the Sudan, just for
starters.  But this jingoistic talk is foolhardy and dangerous.  The war
against terrorism cannot be won in this manner.

 The drumbeat for attacking Baghdad grows louder every day, with Paul
Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, and Bill Bennett leading the
charge.  In a recent interview, U.S.  Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz, made it clear: "We are going to continue pursuing the entire al
Qaeda network which is in 60 countries, not just Afghanistan." Fortunately,
President Bush and Colin Powell so far have resisted the pressure to expand
the war into other countries.  Let us hope and pray that they do not yield
to the clamor of the special interests that want us to take on Iraq.

 The argument that we need to do so because Hussein is producing weapons of
mass destruction is the reddest of all herrings.  I sincerely doubt that he
has developed significant weapons of mass destruction.  However, if that is
the argument, we should plan to attack all those countries that have
similar weapons or plans to build them - countries like China, North Korea,
Israel, Pakistan, and India.  Iraq has been uncooperative with the UN World
Order and remains independent of western control of its oil reserves,
unlike Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.  This is why she has been bombed steadily
for 11 years by the U.S.  and Britain.  My guess is that in the
not-too-distant future, so-called proof will be provided that Saddam
Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack in the United
States, and it will be irresistible then for the U.S.  to retaliate against
him.  This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even
greater hatred toward the United States, and it's all so unnecessary.

 It's just so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently
provoke the Arab/Muslim people, and I'm not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his al Qaeda gang.  I'm talking about the Arab/Muslim masses.

 In 1996, after five years of sanctions against Iraq and persistent
bombings, CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asked our Ambassador to the United
Nations, Madeline Albright, a simple question: "We have heard that a half
million children have died (as a consequence of our policy against Iraq).
Is the price worth it?" Albright's response was "We think the price is
worth it." Although this interview won an Emmy award, it was rarely shown
in the U.S.  but widely circulated in the Middle East.  Some still wonder
why America is despised in this region of the world!

 Former President George W.  Bush has been criticized for not marching on
to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War.  He gave then, and stands by
his explanation today, a superb answer of why it was ill-advised to attempt
to remove Saddam Hussein from power - there were strategic and tactical, as
well as humanitarian, arguments against it.  But the important and
clinching argument against annihilating Baghdad was political.  The
coalition, in no uncertain terms, let it be known they wanted no part of
it.  Besides, the UN only authorized the removal of Saddam Hussein from
Kuwait.  The UN has never sanctioned the continued U.S.  and British
bombing of Iraq - a source of much hatred directed toward the United
States.

 But placing of U.S.  troops on what is seen as Muslim holy land in Saudi
Arabia seems to have done exactly what the former President was trying to
avoid - the breakup of the coalition.  The coalition has hung together by a
thread, but internal dissention among the secular and religious Arab/Muslim
nations within individual countries has intensified.  Even today, the
current crisis threatens the overthrow of every puppet pro-western Arab
leader from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

 Many of the same advisors from the first Bush presidency are now urging
the current President to finish off Hussein.  However, every reason given
11 years ago for not leveling Baghdad still holds true today - if not more
so.

 It has been argued that we needed to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia
after the Persian Gulf War to protect the Saudi government from Iraqi
attack.  Others argued that it was only a cynical excuse to justify keeping
troops to protect what our officials declared were "our" oil supplies.
Some have even suggested that our expanded presence in Saudi Arabia was
prompted by a need to keep King Fahd in power and to thwart any effort by
Saudi fundamentalists to overthrow his regime.

 Expanding the war by taking on Iraq at this time may well please some
allies, but it will lead to unbelievable chaos in the region and throughout
the world.  It will incite even more anti-American sentiment and expose us
to even greater dangers.  It could prove to be an unmitigated disaster.
Iran and Russia will not be pleased with this move.

 It is not our job to remove Saddam Hussein - that is the job of the Iraqi
people.  It is not our job to remove the Taliban - that is the business of
the Afghan people.  It is not our job to insist that the next government in
Afghanistan include women, no matter how good an idea it is.  If this
really is an issue, why don't we insist that our friends in Saudi Arabia
and Kuwait do the same thing, as well as impose our will on them?  Talk
about hypocrisy!  The mere thought that we fight wars for affirmative
action in a country 6,000 miles from home, with no cultural similarities,
should insult us all.  Of course it does distract us from the issue of an
oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan.  We need to keep our eye on the
target and not be so easily distracted.

 Assume for a minute that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan.  Would any of
our military efforts in that region be justified?  Since none of it would
be related to American security, it would be difficult to justify.

 Assume for a minute that bin Laden is as ill as I believe he is with
serious renal disease, would he not do everything conceivable for his cause
by provoking us into expanding the war and alienating as many Muslims as
possible?

 Remember, to bin Laden, martyrdom is a noble calling, and he just may be
more powerful in death than he is in life.  An American invasion of Iraq
would please bin Laden, because it would rally his troops against any
moderate Arab leader who appears to be supporting the United States.  It
would prove his point that America is up to no good, that oil and Arab
infidels are the source of all the Muslims' problems.

 We have recently been reminded of Admiral Yamamoto's quote after the
bombing of Pearl Harbor in expressing his fear that the event "Awakened a
sleeping giant." Most everyone agrees with the prophetic wisdom of that
comment.  But I question the accuracy of drawing an analogy between the
Pearl Harbor event and the World Trade Center attack.  We are hardly the
same nation we were in 1941.  Today, we're anything but a sleeping giant.
There's no contest for our status as the world's only economic, political
and military super power.  A "sleeping giant" would not have troops in 141
countries throughout the world and be engaged in every conceivable conflict
with 250,000 troops stationed abroad.

 The fear I have is that our policies, along with those of Britain, the UN,
and NATO since World War II, inspired and have now awakened a
long-forgotten sleeping giant - Islamic fundamentalism.

 Let's hope for all our sakes that Iraq is not made the target in this
complex war.

[to be continued]

=====

Tomorrow:  Part II

=====

Thought for the Day:

"A Constitution is a terrible thing to waste."

(Letter to the Zundelsite)